RE: SOAP UML diagram

The questions I were asking were all motivated by details in the present
UML diagram.  I believe that many of your answers are saying that it is
not correct.  I strongly recommend that we decrease the level of detail
in this diagram related to this sort of thing -- or spend the time and
effort required to get it really right.

Yes, it would no doubt help me if I read the PR draft, but that was not
the point I was trying to make.

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:21 PM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Cc: Martin Chapman; www-ws-arch@w3.org; www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: SOAP UML diagram


Roger,

It would probably help to read the SOAP1.2 PR draft to understand the 
model.

More responses below.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

Roger Cutler wrote on 06/12/2003 03:09:41 PM:

> 
> Some questions, mostly but not all about cardinality:
> 
> A Message can have 0 senders and/or 0 receivers (although the 
> underlying thing has 1 on bothe).  Is this right?  If a message is 
> anonymous does it have zero senders or is the sender "anonymous"?

How can a message have zero senders? Certainly, a message could get lost
so never actually find its destination, but you need to 
have a sender, even if it remains anonymous, it still exists.

> 
> Can you have a Protocol Binding without an Underlying Protocol?

That wouldn't make any sense.

> 
> Can you have a sender without a message?  (Is that saying that the 
> role does not have to be exercized?)

I guess, but that gets rather existential, doesn't it:)

> 
> I'm confused about what a Module is.  Why must it have at least one 
> Header Block, but a Feature can exist without a Header Block?  Is a 
> Module a necessary concept here?

Read the SOAP1.2 spec. A module is a realization of a SOAP feature as a
SOAP header block(s).

> 
> You've got 0..1 for Header inside Envelope.  I thought a header was 
> mandatory.

Nope, the SOAP:Header element is not required. Only the SOAP:Body is
required.

> 
> Shouldn't MEP have connections to a bunch of other things?  Like 
> Sender, Receiver and Node?  It seems to me that if a MEP is an 
> abstract definition of how a bunch of messages are supposed to work 
> together, that the various pieces of that pattern need to know that 
> they are part of that MEP, don't they?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:24 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: SOAP UML diagram
> 
> 
> 
> updated diagram at:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Jun/0019.html
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 21:45:25 UTC